Govt order upheld /HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN WP No. 9559, 9563 and 9566 of 2024 CNR:{HCMA010645992024} and WMP Nos. 10579, 10582 and 10583 2024 M.Subramaniam ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Principal Secretary State of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.

WP No. 9563 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA010646052024}
M.Anbarasan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Principal Secretary
State of Tamil Nadu,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Director of Town Panchayat
7th And 8th Floor,
Urban Administrative Office Campus, Chennai 28.
3. The Executive Officer
Town Panchayat Officer,
Thalanayar,
Nagapattinam District.
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.07.2021, on the file of the 2nd respondent and further direct the respondents to extend the benefits of GO (MS) No. 54 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.1) Department dated 23.05.2017 by absorbing the petitioner as Work Inspector from the date of the above Government order and release all monetary and service benefits of the petitioner from the date of the Government order in the post of work Inspector within a stipulated time fixed by this Court.
WP No. 9566 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA010646082024}
C.Sivakami
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Principal Secretary
State of Tamil Nadu,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Director of Town Panchayat
7th And 8th Floor,
Urban Administrative Office Campus, Chennai 28.
3. The Executive Officer
Town Panchayat Officer, Kottur Town Panchayat, Coimbatore District.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.12.2022 and further direct the respondents to extend the benefits of GO (MS) No. 54 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.1) Department dated 23.05.2017 by absorbing the petitioner as Work Inspector from the date of the above Government order and release all monetary and service benefits of the petitioner from the date of the Government order in the post of work Inspector within a stipulated time fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner(s):
in all W.Ps Mr.S.R.Singaravelan for Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muruganantham
For Respondent(s):
in all W.Ps Mr.S.Kumaresan,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.V.Sivalingam,
Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 17.07.2021, 17.07.2021 and 27.12.2022 and consequently, direct the respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.(Ms).No.54, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.1) Department, dated 23.05.2017, by absorbing the petitioners as Work Inspectors from the date of the aforesaid Government Order and to release all monetary and service benefits to the petitioners from the date of the said Government Order in the post of Work Inspector, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner in W.P.No.9566 of 2024 has been serving as a Technical
Assistant since 01.09.2008 and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.9559 and 9563 of
2024 have been serving as Technical Assistants since 10.02.2010 and
01.12.2010, respectively, in the third respondent Office, and that they were working as NMRs along with 79 other persons. In W.P.No.5203 of 2016, this
Court had directed the respondents to promote the persons who were working as Technical Assistants as Work Inspectors. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent issued G.O.(Ms).No.54, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.1) Department, dated 23.05.2017, promoting only 32 Technical Assistants as Work Inspectors, leaving 47 posts vacant.
2.1. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the Assistant Engineer, through letter dated 30.03.2013, had forwarded the names of the petitioners for absorption in the third respondent Department. Further, the Joint Director of Town Panchayat had also recommended the names of the petitioners for absorption. However, the first respondent has not considered the representations of the petitioners dated 17.07.2021, 17.07.2021 and 27.12.2022. Hence, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.(Ms).No.54, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.1) Department, dated 23.05.2017.
3. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General and would contend that, as per Section 2.2.3 of the Engineering Manual for Urban Local Bodies of Tamil Nadu, while executing a work, 2.5% of the entire project cost is permissible for allocation towards petty supervision. Based on the said allocation, persons used to be temporarily engaged, and no right would accrue to such persons by virtue of such engagement. In the meanwhile, the Government issued G.O.(Ms).No.93, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.1) Department, dated 28.05.1998, creating 250 posts of Work Inspectors.
3.1. The learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that, in the meanwhile, since there was a general ban on recruitment, the Government absorbed 190 work-charged employees who had completed more than 10 years of service as on the cut-off date, i.e., 29.11.2001, under G.O.(Ms).No.193, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.1) Department, dated 19.09.2008. It is also his contention that the petitioners cannot claim appointment to the post of Work Inspector, as they have no proof to establish that they were in service prior to the year 2001. He would further submit that, as per the order passed in W.P.No.5203 of 2016, the direction was issued only in respect of those persons who were working at the relevant point of time, namely, 54 eligible candidates, and since the petitioners were not working at the relevant point of time, they are not entitled to claim parity.
3.2. It is also his contention that the judgment in W.P.No.5203 of 2016 is in the nature of a judgment in personam. The learned Additional Advocate General would further contend that, though reliance has been placed upon the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27825 of 2011 etc., batch, dated 10.04.2018, and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2682 of 2018 and W.A.No.2013 of 2019, the said cases, though relating to a similar nature of dispute, cannot be applied to the present case, particularly in view of the delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. Hence, he prayed to dismiss these Writ Petitions.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would place considerable reliance upon the observations made by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5203 of 2016, dated 03.03.2016. For ready reference, the same is extracted hereunder:-
“7. Although this Court fully agrees with the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that since out of 250 vacant Work Inspectors, 171 are going to be promoted and therefore, 79 vacancies are available, which will be no doubt, treated as Vanishing Category, further since the petitioners are longing for promotion, for more than 10 years, in the post of Technical Assistant, since their earlier prayer to promote them to the post of Work Inspector, has been turned down, as this post has been considered as Vanishing Category, this Court, in the interest of the parties to the petition, is of the considered view that out of 79 vacancies, available in the posts of Work Inspector, the respondents are directed to consider, not only the petitioners, 15 in number, all the 54 persons, presently working as Technical Assistants, for the same and after their superannuation, it is left open to the respondents to treat the post of Work Inspector as a Vanishing Category. The above exercise shall be done within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
6. On perusal of the aforesaid order dated 03.03.2016, it is seen that, though 79 vacancies were available in the post of Work Inspector, since the said post was going to become a vanishing category and that there were 54 employees working as Technical Assistants and awaiting promotion, all the 54 persons who were working as on the date of passing of the judgment were directed to be absorbed as Work Inspectors. Based on the said direction, the respondent authorities had initiated the process and the Directorate of Town Panchayat, vide proceedings dated 21.06.2016, submitted a proposal. In the said proposal, various categories of persons were considered, including those who were working in 2006.
7. As per the aforesaid proposal, out of the 54 persons falling under the three categories, four persons had passed away, 26 persons had left the service, and one person had already been absorbed. Thus, only 23 persons were working in the respondent Department as on the date of the proposal. The remaining persons who had left the service were also listed as 14 persons. Out of the said 14 persons, those who had not completed 10 years of service as on 29.11.2001 and those who had left the service were not considered. Ultimately, 32 persons were requested to be regularised based on G.O.(Ms).No.54, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.1) Department, dated 23.05.2017. The claim of the petitioners is that they are also entitled to seek parity with the persons covered by G.O.(Ms).No.54, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.1) Department, dated 23.05.2017.
8. In order to understand the scope of the aforesaid Government Order, the proposal of the Directorate of Town Panchayat dated 21.06.2016 assumes significance. The said proposal emanated pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.5203 of 2016. In terms of the direction issued in the said writ petition, though the 54 persons who were working at the relevant point of time were directed to be promoted to the post of Work Inspector, the Directorate of Town Panchayat had also considered certain other omitted persons and, out of the said category of 14 persons, 9 persons were also regularised. In such a backdrop, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioners cannot seek parity on the ground that they had not completed 10 years of service as on 2001 and that they were recruited only during the year 2010, and that the aforesaid Government Order was passed only in respect of the 54 persons who were working on the date of passing of the writ order, cannot be countenanced.
9. As already stated, apart from the persons covered by the writ order, the respondent Department had also considered certain omitted persons. Among them were Senthil Kumar and Shankar, who had worked from 2009 to 2011. Though they were terminated from service, they challenged the termination and the said Writ Petition was subsequently ordered in their favour. Based on the said order, they were also regularised. This factual position is not seriously disputed by the learned Additional Advocate General.
10. The order passed by this Court in W.P.No.27825 of 2011 etc., batch, dated 10.04.2018, which has been referred to in the proposal of the Directorate of Town Panchayat with reference to M.Senthil Kumar and P.Shankar, relates to persons who had been omitted from the list and who were subsequently directed to be regularised. In this connection, it is relevant to extract paragraph 12 of the order in W.P.No.27825 of 2011 etc., batch, dated 10.04.2018, which reads as follows:-
“12. As regards the issue of cut off date is concerned, it is admitted fact that the said cut off date had lost its sanctity when persons appointed after 2001 had been regularly absorbed as Work Inspectors on the basis of the observation made by this Court or by the competent authority's orders. When such is the case, whether the submissions made by the learned
Addl.Advocate General sanctifying the cut off date in order to deny the benefit of regular absorption to the petitioners, can be held to be valid any more. The simple answer is 'no'. The learned Judge of this Court even as early as on 3.3.2016 passed an order by directing the respondents to fill up the vacancies of the Work Inspectors with as many persons as possible not only restricting it to 15 petitioners therein and on the basis of the direction of this Court, a list was also prepared on 26.5.2017, wherein, 32 names were included leaving out the petitioners. Even if these 32 persons were absorbed, eventually there are still very many posts left unfilled in the posts of Work Inspector and it appears from the facts of the are that there are enough hands available in the post of Technical Assistants to fill up the actual sanctioned strength of Work Inspector. That being the case, this Court does not see any justification as to why the names of the petitioners alone can be singled out denying the benefit of regular absorption in the post of Work Inspectors.”
Therefore, the cut-off date fixed in the year 2001 cannot be treated as hard and fast rule. The said view was subsequently upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2682 of 2018 and W.A.No.2013 of 2019, dated 03.03.2023.
11. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raman Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2023 (10) SCALE 51. However, the facts of the said judgment are not similar to those of the present case. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
12. The point that now arises for consideration is whether the benefit extended under G.O.(Ms).No.54, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP.1) Department, dated 23.05.2017, is applicable to the petitioners or not.
13. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners places reliance upon the orders passed in W.P.No.27825 of 2011 etc., batch. However, strictly speaking, the aforesaid judgment is only a judgment in personam. Further, on consideration of the factual position, it is seen that the said writ petition was filed in the year 2011, whereas the present petitioners started submitting their representations only during the years 2021 and 2022, and the present Writ Petitions have been filed only in the year 2024.
14. Therefore, though this Court is of the view that the petitioners could also be termed as omitted persons, considering the long delay in approaching this Court and having regard to the fact that the petitioners are fence sitters and that the post of Work Inspector has already been treated as a vanishing category, granting the relief of regularisation at this length of time would affect the policy decision taken by the respondents.
15. In view of the above detailed discussion, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
30-09-2026 Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KV
1. The Principal Secretary
State of Tamil Nadu,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2. The Director of Town Panchayat
7th and 8th Floor,
Urban Administrative Office Campus, Chennai 28.
3 .The Executive Officer
Town Panchayat Officer, Vaitheeswaran Kovil,
Mayiladuthurai District.
4. The Executive Officer
Town Panchayat Officer,
Manalmedu Town Panchayat, Mayiladuthurai District.
5. The Executive Officer
Town Panchayat Officer, Thalanayar, Nagapattinam District.
6. The Executive Officer
Town Panchayat Officer, Kottur Town Panchayat, Coimbatore District.
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
WP No. 9559, 9563 and 9566 of 2024
30-09-2026